THE AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL NATURE OF THE ALLEGORY IN WOLE

13 Pages·2014·0.16 MB·English

European Scientific Journal November 2014 edition vol.10, No.32 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL NATURE OF THE
ALLEGORY IN WOLE SOYINKA’S DEATH AND
THE KING’S HORSEMAN

Moffat Moyo, MA
University of Zambia, Zambia

Abstract
This work examines Wole Soyinka’s use of the allegory through
which he sneaks himself into the text of Death and the King’s Horseman.
Using the theory of New Historicism which claims that there is a relationship
between the text and the historical milieu of the text, the paper explores
Soyinka’s background and relates it to the text under discussion. Particular
emphasis is placed on the parallel between Soyinka and the character Olunde
in the play.
It is concluded that through Olunde, Soyinka creeps into the text. This is due
to the understanding that Olunde represents the African who has been to
England to learn not only the English culture but also healing for his land
hence returns to the healing of his land. The parallel is shown through
Soyinka’s studying of theatre and Olunde’s studying of medicine in England.

Keywords: Autobiography, allegory, Soyinka, New Historicism

Introduction
Wole Soyinka, one of Africa’s literary and theatrical giants employs
myths and allegory in his works. Many have thought that he merely focuses
on politics in his works. The study seeks to show how he has brought
elements of the autobiography into the play Death and the King’s Horseman.
The work will explore the subject of allegory before considering Nigeria’s
background and Soyinka’s place in it before studying the play in question
while relating it to the subject’s life.

Theoretical Framework
New Historicism
This work is guided by the theory of New Historicism, which,
according to Abrams (1999), is more concerned with the historicity of the
text. He seems to suggest that each text is chiefly a cultural product of its
own era. It is suggested in this case that the cultural product, the text cannot
194
European Scientific Journal November 2014 edition vol.10, No.32 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
entirely be seen as independent of the world, including the time and space,
that it was produced in.
Writing in the Introduction to The New Historicism (1989), Veeser
argues that through the New Historicism, academics have broken the
boundaries that separated history, anthropology, art, politics, literature and
economics. This, he continues, has helped humanists question all matters that
affect them regardless of the discipline. The idea advanced above can easily
be qualified by Foucault (2001) that “the author’s name characterizes a
particular manner of existence of discourse. Discourse that possess an
author’s name is not to be immediately consumed and forgotten; neither is it
accorded the momentary attention given to ordinary, fleeting words. Rather,
its status and its manner of reception are regulated by the culture in which it
circulates.” It is important to mention here that the view expressed by
Foucault above suggests that works bearing an author’s name, or authored
works, are given a special status in society and are therefore created and
consumed with the understanding of the culture in which they are born. The
reference to the works culture in this instance is very cardinal as it points to
the relationship between the work and the culture. This makes one assume,
from Foucault’s argument that there is a strong link between the work and
the culture that produces it.
Before pointing out the interrelations between the author, the text and
the society, one precursor of New Historicism, Greenblatt (1989) says that
literary criticism has terms such as allusion, allegorization and symbolization
among others to link the work of art to the time and society of its basis. This
implies a link between the work and the society it is tied to. To link the
author and the society to the work, he continues saying that the creation of
the work of art is a negotiation between the creator or creators and the
institutions of society. Greenblatt here argues that the work is created in
relation to the society. This approach shows that the work of art is created
but with the society it represents in mind.
The New Historicism, therefore, argues that the cultural milieu is
paramount in the interpretation of a literary work without disregarding the
author’s relationship with the society.
This leads to discussing the major concept of this work, allegory
which has already been alluded to by Greenblatt above in linking the work to
the society and the author.

Allegory
With origins in the ancient world, the allegory, Cuddon (1999: 19)
says, appears to be a mode of expression (a way of feeling and thinking
about things and seeing them) so natural to the human mind that it is
universal. In fact, de Man (1979) says that texts will always contain allusions
195
European Scientific Journal November 2014 edition vol.10, No.32 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
which in his work he has referred to as substitutions. But what really is an
allegory?
Mweseli (2005: 348) in the appendix to her co-edited Imagination of
Poets; an Anthology of African Poems says that allegory is “a literary or
dramatic device in which the events of a narrative or an implied narrative
obviously and continuously refer to another simultaneous structure of events
or ideas, whether historical events, moral or philosophical ideas, or natural
phenomena.” In other words, these events that could be seen to be all-
meaning and totally complete on their own are not really complete as they
refer to something else. Her use of the word ‘simultaneous’ here shows the
duality of meaning in the narrative or implied narrative in a given situation.
What needs to be questioned regarding Mweseli’s definition is the use of the
word ‘obvious’ because it is not always clear that a work of art is operating
at two levels.
For example, Booker (1996: 474) considers allegory at character
level. He defines it as “a literary form in which the persons or objects
described are intended to invoke another set (often of a more abstract or
general nature) of persons or objects.” This definition suggests that allegory
does not always have to be an easy way to explaining a literary or dramatic
piece of work. Another interesting element of Booker’s definition is the use
of the word ‘invoke’ which conveys the idea that it is not enough for the
reader or critic to read between the lines but the text itself will excite
emotional appeal and effect on the reader who will be brought to the thought
of other objects or persons in the text. It is at this level that the reader will
make associations between what they are reading and what they can see
outside the text and draw conclusions about the representativeness of the text
in question.
As has been observed from arguments by Greenblatt (1989), Foucault
(2001), and Veeser (1989) among others, there exists a relationship between
literature and society because literature is based on society, and that this
relationship is in certain cases allegorical. It is this regard that it can be
argued that not all fictive characters discussed in imaginary works are fictive.
This is guided by the suggestion by Booker (1996) that an allegory could be
at character level. This means that an allegory could be an object or a
character substituting for another character in this case an actual human
being in society.
The existence of a relationship between literature and society implies
the existence of a close link between society and the artists which translates
into the work of art being a mere replica of society. The writer picks actual
names of social members as the material for his work. He picks on actual
issues going on in his society as what the society will identify with in the
consumption of the product. It is at this level that the argument takes root
196
European Scientific Journal November 2014 edition vol.10, No.32 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
that every literary piece of work is allegorical. These arguments summed up
with de Man’s (1979) submission that all texts contain substitution, one
comes to a conclusion that at every literary work is to a larger extent
allegorical.

Soyinka
Wole Soyinka, according to Shorter (1998) is Africa’s leading
playwright, who also happens to be a poet, novelist, essayist, memoirist,
librettist, lecturer, nonfiction writer, editor, and biographer, born in Ìsarà,
Nigeria in 1934. According to Wilatec (2006), Soyinka, as a child became
increasingly aware of the pull between African tradition and Western
modernization. Most people in his village, Aké, were from the Yoruba tribe
and were presided over by the ogboni, or tribal elders. His grandfather
introduced him to the pantheon of Yoruba gods and other figures of tribal
folklore. His parents, however, were representatives of colonial influence:
his mother was a devout Christian convert, and his father was a headmaster
at the village school established by the British. At this stage, as shown by
Wilatec, Soyinka already had the two cultures inherent in him. This
condition was further enthused by the education he received both at home,
in Nigeria, and in England. As the discussion progresses, it shall be seen that
Soyinka has this combination of cultures clearly reflected in his writings.
Moore (1978) in his Wole Soyinka further says that no African writer
or intellectual can avoid involvement in public affairs. On this subject,
Wilatec (2006) says that Soyinka was arrested in 1965 after being accused of
using a gun to force a radio announcer to broadcast incorrect election results.
There was no evidence to attest to that. Therefore, the writers’ organization,
PEN, protested and, after three months, Soyinka was released.
The most outstanding instance of his involvement in public activities
was his attempt to broker a deal between the warring factions in 1967. This
was during the Biafran civil war. What angered Soyinka was the
government’s brutal policies towards Ibos who were attempting to form their
own country, Biafra. He then travelled to Biafra to establish a peace
commission composed of leading intellectuals from both sides of the
conflict. The Nigerian police accused Soyinka of assisting the Biafrans to
purchase jet fighters. This led to his two-year imprisonment with no formal
charges.
Soyinka began a period of self-imposed exile in 1993 when General
Ibrahim Babangida refused to allow a democratic government to take power.
Babangida, who appointed General Sani Abacha as head of the Nigerian
state, charged the pro-democracy individuals, one of whom was Soyinka,
with treason due to their criticism of the military regime. Facing a death
197
European Scientific Journal November 2014 edition vol.10, No.32 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
sentence prompted Soyinka to leave the country in 1994 and spend time
lecturing in European and American universities.
Soyinka has held teaching positions at a number of prestigious
universities, including the University of Ghana, Cornell University, and Yale
University. He also served as the Goldwin Smith professor for African
Studies and Theatre Arts at Cornell University from 1988 to 1991. Soyinka
has received several awards for his work, such as the Nobel Prize for
Literature in 1986 and the Enrico Mattei Award for Humanities in 1986.
Amongst the many writers looking at Soyinka, Jones (1988) seems to
have done the most comprehensive study of the writer. He looks at Yoruba
mythology in general as he studies the Yoruba culture that includes their
occupations and festivals. After that he goes on to talk about Christian and
other influences on Soyinka, and later at Soyinka’s basic concerns.
Jones sees Soyinka as being attached to modernity by work
experience and education while it is his background that is imbedded in the
Yoruba culture. He goes on to say that apart from this relation, Soyinka has
also taken deep interest in Yoruba studies. This has led to his works having
both European and African (Yoruba) traditions deeply rooted in them.
He says that Soyinka’s basic concern, passionately and desperately, is
for society. This concern is not only literary as can be seen from his
involvement in politics. It is for this reason that Jones has ended by saying
that generally, Soyinka’s works appreciate life and deprecate the opposite
such as war.
To the views of Jones (1988) above, Moore (1978) adds as an already
known fact that “Soyinka’s work is linked with certain events and
experiences of his life that the critic cannot write of it, beyond the level of
mere description, without making some attempt to link the two” (pg 1). This
view could lead one to suggesting that Moore sees Soyinka’s writing to be to
a certain extent biographical. This could be the reason why he argues that it
is not possible to look at his works in isolation from his life. It is further
married by the introductory statement on the Soyinka segment of this paper
that he has had some involvement in public life.
McPheron (1998) says that Wole Soyinka is among contemporary
Africa's greatest writers. He is also one of the continent's most imaginative
advocates of native culture and of the humane social order it embodies. He
sees Soyinka’s work employing an approach that would lead to liberating
black Africa from its crippling legacy of European imperialism. McPheron
therefore says Soyinka envisioned a “New Africa” that would escape its
colonial past by grafting the technical advances of the present onto the stock
of its own ancient traditions. Native myth, reformulated to accommodate
contemporary reality, was to be the foundation of the future, opening the way
to “self-retrieval, cultural recollection, and cultural security”. He says
198
European Scientific Journal November 2014 edition vol.10, No.32 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
Soyinka dreamed instead of a truly de-colonized continent, where an
autonomous African culture assimilated only those progressive elements of
recent history that were consistent with its own authentic identity.
On Soyinka’s style, McPheron says that his discordant mixing of
genres, his wilful ambiguities of meaning, his unresolved clashes of
contradictions cease to be aesthetic flaws as Western critics often label them.
Instead, they become our path into an African reality fiercely itself and
utterly other when looked at but from the angle of his connection with the
mythic world. His conclusion, regarding Soyinka is that his plays, novels,
poetry, and critical essays only peripherally prepare the reader for his
autobiography. Rich description, elaborate scenes and fascinating characters
are interwoven in a narrative style laced with side-splitting humour and
luxurious poignancy.

Allegory in Death and the King’s Horseman
Death and the King’s Horseman is a play based on actual events that
took place in Oyo the ancient Yoruba city of Nigeria in 1946. Death and the
King’s Horseman is therefore an historical play whose parallels with society
should be looked at with care because it is an actual representation of what
has taken place before. Soyinka could be seen as having re-enacted an actual
event and not talking about other issues allegorically.
Notwithstanding this idea, as it has already been stated, this play
based on the 1946 events has been set about three years earlier. The
alteration of such details has a bearing on this study and hence the
understanding of the play. The changing of the details makes this be more of
a creative piece of work and not a mere recreation of historical events.
Soyinka, in this play, creates a play that is ‘merely based’ on events that took
place. He does not play the role of a historian whose purpose is not to
embellish the narration but to narrate events as they took place. Soyinka’s is
to focus on the aesthetics of the work apart from recounting facts.
The above cause makes this play be seen not in terms of history alone
but chiefly in line with creativity and hence making it a piece of literary art
for an audience to consume. The work is therefore expected to say what
could not have been said by the playwright plainly such as criticism of the
governments.
Having mentioned that, the paper ill therefore now investigate
instances that portray duality of meanings, that is to say those instances that
could be allegorical in the text. There is need to mention that the focus of this
paper is the autobiographical nature of the allegory in the play, that is the
author ‘sneaks’ into the play as a character.
The discussion of Wole Soyinka’s biography showed that the Nobel
Prize winning playwright was born in Africa but obtained education both at
199
European Scientific Journal November 2014 edition vol.10, No.32 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
home in Nigeria and abroad in England. This combination of two cultures in
his growing up has appeared in his works. This same combination has been
said to be his strength. He has been seen as a symbiosis of African and
English traditions inherent within him. Soyinka can then be regarded as a
midpoint between African in general and Nigeria in particular, on one hand
and Europe in general and England in particular on the other. It would then
be argued that where there is a clash of cultures, it is Soyinka who would be
taken as an intermediary between Africa and Europe. This could be the
reason why Soyinka himself says that this play should not be seen as a clash
of cultures. To him doing this is wrong because two cultures are seen as
being given equal prominence when it is clear that of the two cultures, one is
indigenous while the other is alien and the indigenous seems to be an equal
of the alien culture yet on its own soil.
Soyinka has argued that Death and the King’s Horseman is not about
a clash of cultures. This is because he believes that this can be solved as
there is an intermediary in Olunde. Olunde is a young man who has been
sent to England to study medicine. The teaching of medicine to Olunde has a
semi-duo meaning in the text. In gives the meaning that Olunde is a subject
of modernisation. Olunde is clearly being inducted into the English culture
and yet it is clear that he is responsible for the continuation of the Yoruba
culture being a first son of King’s horseman, Elesin Oba. The sending to a
modern institution of such people is the deliberate cultural dilution of a
group of people. One wonders why it actually had to be done so forcefully.
Pilkings, the District Officer sends Olunde away from Nigeria without the
consent of the parent. This shows disregard for indigenous culture by the
‘aliens’, in the words of Soyinka. It therefore is Pilkings’s idea that with the
sending away of the person at the centre of the continuation of the culture,
there is a complete break and hence death of a tradition.
Yet, when looked at closely, this sending of Olunde to England is for
the sake of healing. Olunde has been sent to England to study (we can as
well say learn) medicine. The whole essence of learning medicine is to be a
healer. Since there can never be a healer if there is no sickness, we can well
argue that Pilkings sees the African society as a sick society in need of
healing. He sees one of their own is the best to bring about this healing. We
should hence agree that Olunde is the one who will one day come in and heal
this ailing society once he has learnt medicine. The medicine that Olunde
learnt is not mentioned except in his telling of what he has learnt in terms of
sacrifice and wastage of human life in line with sacrifice. Olunde says that he
has seen greed in the actions of the generals who remain at home and send
young people to fight in the war. He believes that the Europeans have no
right to call African customs barbaric when they are not any different from
theirs.
200
European Scientific Journal November 2014 edition vol.10, No.32 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
[…]OLUNDE (mildly): And that is the good cause
for which you desecrate the ancestral
mask.
JANE: Oh, so you are shocked after all. How
disappointing.
OLUNDE: No I am not shocked Mrs Pilikings.
You forget that I have spent four years
among your people. I discovered that
you have no respect for what you do not
understand.
JANE: Oh. So you’ve returned with a chip on your
shoulder. That a pity Olunde. I am
sorry.
(An uncomfortable silence follows.)
I take it then that you did not find your stay in
England altogether edifying.
OLUNDE: I don’t say that. I found your people
quite admirable in many ways, their
conduct and courage in this war for
instance [...] you white people know
how to survive; I’ve seen proof of that.
By all logical and natural laws this war
should end with all the white races
wiping out one another, wiping out their
so-called civilisation for all time and
reverting to a state of primitivism the
likes of which has so far only existed in
your imagination when you thought of
us. I thought all that at the beginning.
Then I slowly realised that your greatest
art is the art of survival. But at least
have the humility to let others survive in
their own way.
JANE: Through ritual suicide?
OLUNDE: Is that worse that mass suicide? Mrs
Pilkings, what do you call what those
young men are sent to do by their
generals in this war? Of course you have
mastered the art of calling things by
names which don’t remotely describe
them.
201
European Scientific Journal November 2014 edition vol.10, No.32 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
JANE: You talk! You people with your long-
winded, roundabout way of making
conversation.
OLUNDE: Mrs Pilkings, whatever we do, we
never suggest a thing is the opposite of
what it really is. In your newsreels I
heard defeats, thorough, murderous
defeats described as strategic victories.
No wait, it wasn’t just on your
newsreels. Don’t forget I was attached
to hospitals all the time. Hordes of your
wounded passed through those wards. I
spoke to them. I spent long evenings by
their bedside while they spoke terrible
truths of the realities of that war. I know
now how history is made.
In this passage, Soyinka shows the learning of Olunde and his
conclusion of the lifestyle of the whites and their view of other cultures. He
does not criticise their culture but is able to say what is wrong in their culture
for instance when it comes to the war which he believes is a path to
primitivism. Olunde’s idea is that it is primitive to have a war like this that
leads to the white race being wiped out. He goes on to say that living like
this is primitive and pointing to the fact that whites thought of primitivism
only when they thought about Africans.
This learning of Olunde we see in the play is clearly Soyinka’s own.
It becomes clear as one reads that just like Benson (1618 in Pleasure
Reconciled to Virtue includes himself and Jones as Hercules and Daedalus
respectively, Soyinka also brings himself into this text. Shakespeare has also
been seen to introduce himself in his concluding work, The Tempest where
Prospero ends the play declaring that all the charms he has are overdone and
all he has now is his own power.
The reasons that lead to the conclusion that there is Soyinka’s
presence in the text is the multiplicity of the similarities between Olunde and
Soyinka himself. In the first place, Olunde is noticed as being brilliant in
school by Pilkings. This implies that Olunde was in an academic institution
in Nigeria before being sent to England. The idea that he was sent to study
medicine shows that Olunde was sent only for university education implying
that he had already done his high school education. This is evident in
Soyinka who did the first part of his education in Nigeria before proceeding
to England for his further education. This implies that Soyinka would be
exposed to the English culture which would be seen as an attempt to wipe
out his ‘tribal memory’. While Olunde is expected to be the custodian of the
202
European Scientific Journal November 2014 edition vol.10, No.32 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
culture in the absence of his father, the symbol of continuity of culture,
Soyinka was introduced by his grandfather to the pantheon of Yoruba gods
and other figures of tribal folklore which should be seen as a symbol of
continuation. In both, it can be said, there is that element of continuity.
While in England, Olunde learns the culture of the whites. He does
not despise them but sees that there is something admirable about their
culture though he is still able to pick out what is important. He praises the
captain who sacrifices his life for the sake of the people. He sees this as
something worth it. Soyinka similarly gets aspects of the English culture that
he shows in his drama. He is one poet cum dramatist who has been praised
for effectively weaving both the African as well as English literary
conventions in his works.
While it is expected that Olunde will sacrifice his life for the sake of
not only his culture but also his people, he does it long before the coming of
his time. Olunde takes the role of his father when his father delays in doing
it. Similarly, Soyinka sacrifices his life when he notices that the lives of the
people of Nigeria are at stake when dictatorship takes root in the country. He
tries to broker a deal between warring parties for the sake of his country’s
freedom. Soyinka shows a non-selfish move when he is sent to jail and still
stands his ground and believes he has to fight for his country. The
Promethean myth that he portrays in his The Man Died as discussed by
Munatamba (1981) in his paper The Promethean Myth in Soyinka’s The
Man Died, shows Soyinka to be a giver to his society. Just as Prometheus
stole fire for humans, Soyinka fights for freedom for the people of Nigeria.
He is held without trial for two years and released only upon the outcry from
the international community. The recording of his experiences as shown in
The Man Died and A Shuttle in the Crypt is convincing enough that this is an
act of sacrifice for both his land its people. That is what he is to his society as
this is the same element brought out in Death and the King’s Horseman.
We can therefore conclude that Soyinka in Death and the King’s
Horseman shows himself to the world. He shows what is expected of him
and how really he sees himself. He therefore explains that even though he is
seen as a meeting point for different cultural expectations, Soyinka is a
symbol of continuity regarding African culture.
Writers such as Moore (1978), Jones (1988), and Wilatec (2006) say
that Soyinka is interested in public affairs. They say he is interested in taking
part in activities that affect people in general. In his The Writer in a Modern
State (1988), Soyinka argues that the writer has a role to play in the activities
of governments. This could equally mean that the writer’s writing should
have a bearing on the happenings of society. Other works of Soyinka such as
his The Beatification of Area Boy and King Baabu have been said to satirise
the Abacha regime in Nigeria and military tyrants in general, (Banham,
203